Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
'Yes, but can we still value the orchard trees and find beauty in them without clinging to them or labeling them as ours? Can we take pleasure in the fact that those trees can be enjoyed by all sentient beings, even though we know at some point those trees will all die?'
What is pleasure & enjoy? All constructs of our muddled mind.
Perhaps the concept of rebirth can be appropriated and used as a metaphor for the so-called "moment-to-moment rebirth", but whether or not this was the Buddha's intended primary usage is debatable.
Hello GuyC
For me, there is nothing to debate.
In the supramundane "moment-to-moment" teachings, the Buddha used the word "jati" or "birth".
In the morality teachings, the Buddha used myriad other words, which the translators generally translate as "rebirth". None of these words are "jati".
But some monks such as Ajahn Brahm & Ajahn Brahmali get mixed up about this, when they interpret the Dependent Origination as "rebirth".
The Buddha offered two kinds of teachings, namely, those about "birth" and those about "rebirth". The difference in the scriptures is unambiguous.
All the best.
There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form... feeling... perception... fabricating... consciousness to be the self.
That assumption is a fabrication.
Now what is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth [jati], what is the coming-into-existence of that fabrication?
To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person, touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication [of self] is born of that.
And that fabrication is inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen. That craving... That feeling... That contact... That ignorance is inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen.
Regarding “jati”, a search of the internet will find the following definition:
jati - (Hinduism) a Hindu caste or distinctive social group of which there are thousands throughout India; a special characteristic is often the exclusive occupation of its male members (such as barber or potter) Such a definition is not exclusive to Hinduism or foreign to Buddhism. I would speculate this meaning of ‘jati’ was the common meaning of the term in the culture of the Buddha and the meaning he intended to impart.
Wikipedia
In his Vissuddhimagga, the Venerable Buddhaghosa explains:
Now this word jati has many meanings.
For in the passage 'he recollects one birth, two births, etc', it is becoming.
In the passage 'Visakha, there is a kind (jati) of ascetics called Niganthas (Jains)', it is monastic order.
In the passage 'birth is includes in two aggregates', it is whatever is formed.
In the passage 'his birth is due to the first consciousness in the mother's womb' (Vin.i,93), it is rebirth-linking [which the Buddha did not teach].
In the passage 'as soon as he was born (sampatijata), the Bodhisattva' (M.iii,123) it is parturition [childbirth].
In the passage 'one who is not rejected and despised on the account of birth', it is clan.
In the passage 'sister, since i was born with noble birth', it is the Noble One's virtue.
This kind of definition of jati is most readily found in MN 98, where it is said:
Men are farmers by their acts; And by their acts are craftsmen too. Men are merchants by their acts; And by their acts are servants too.
Men are robbers by their acts; And by their acts are soldiers too. Men are chaplains by their acts; And by their acts are rulers too.
So that is how the truly wise See action how it really is,
Seers in Dependent Origination Skilled in actions and results.
On an individual level, rather than on a social level, this 'jati' takes the form of the ‘self identification’ explained in MN 44 and MN 148:
These five aggregates subject to clinging are the self-identification described by the Blessed One. The craving that makes for new becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving to be, craving not to be: This, friend Visakha, is the origination of self-identification described by the Blessed One.
This, monks, is the path of practice leading to self-identification. One assumes about the eye that 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.' One assumes about forms... One assumes about consciousness at the eye... One assumes about contact at the eye... One assumes about feeling... One assumes about craving that 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.'
To bring the analogy home, maybe we can take pleasure in existence while acknowledging that existence is not something which inherently belongs to us? I think a lot of us may view life as something which we own and is going to be taken from us, whether we like it or not. Therefore, to escape suffering, we feel as though we should just give it all up, then when someone comes to take it from us, there will be nothing left to take.
What if, instead, we saw life as a gift rather than something which inherently belongs to us. And rather than death being something which forcibly takes life away from us, we can see it as an opportunity to pass the gift on. When I look at the evolution of consciousness and the evolution of life and the universe, it seems to me that this is the very process by which life evolves. Something is given form, then creates something more beautiful with that form, then passes that form onto something else. So we go from pure light to stars to planets to rock and oceans to water and trees to insects and animals, including human beings. What will the next evolution of life bring? And what is our role in that process?
So sorry for ranting! These are just some ideas I have. Not entirely sure how related to Buddhism they are.
@ Kunga
In Buddhism, we create our world through our 6 senses (sights, sounds, smells, tastes, body sensations and thoughts). This is our reality. Each person's reality is different. One person's heaven is another's hell.
Clinging to the senses tends to create suffering. It leads to greed for what we like and aversion to what we dislike. Without clinging we are more equanimous and tend not to vigorously pursue things and create suffering for ourselves and others.
If you see life as a gift, not something which inherently belongs to you, you are already showing wisdom of seeing things as they are and not as you would like it to be. For that reason you don't see suffering
Perhaps the concept of rebirth can be appropriated and used as a metaphor for the so-called "moment-to-moment rebirth", but whether or not this was the Buddha's intended primary usage is debatable.
I think that this approach just confuses the issue. Also I'm not convinced that moment to moment rebirth is a useful or an accurate way of examining experience.
Comments
What is pleasure & enjoy?
All constructs of our muddled mind.
For example, if Ajahn Brahm died, it would not bother me because I have no intimacy or attachment regarding Ajahn Brahm.
But for you, it may be otherwise. Why?
This is a "truth" to be investigated within the heart.
Due to birth & death, there is suffering in the mind of one individual but not another.
Best wishes
:bawl:
Metta,
Guy
For me, there is nothing to debate.
In the supramundane "moment-to-moment" teachings, the Buddha used the word "jati" or "birth".
In the morality teachings, the Buddha used myriad other words, which the translators generally translate as "rebirth". None of these words are "jati".
But some monks such as Ajahn Brahm & Ajahn Brahmali get mixed up about this, when they interpret the Dependent Origination as "rebirth".
The Buddha offered two kinds of teachings, namely, those about "birth" and those about "rebirth". The difference in the scriptures is unambiguous.
All the best.
:coffee:
I understand your position, I just do not agree with it. I think it is best at this point that we just agree to disagree.
*offers handshake*
Metta,
Guy
In Buddhism, we create our world through our 6 senses (sights, sounds, smells, tastes, body sensations and thoughts). This is our reality. Each person's reality is different. One person's heaven is another's hell.
Clinging to the senses tends to create suffering. It leads to greed for what we like and aversion to what we dislike. Without clinging we are more equanimous and tend not to vigorously pursue things and create suffering for ourselves and others.
If you see life as a gift, not something which inherently belongs to you, you are already showing wisdom of seeing things as they are and not as you would like it to be. For that reason you don't see suffering
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/seeingthings.html
P